/m/history

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

But seriously, how about the actual arguments here? Looking at them more closely, I don't understand them. For one thing, with interleague play, AL pitchers bat and take BP pretty often. For another, if it results in him going 16-10 with an ERA of 3.50, A.J. Burnett should look into getting hit in the face every spring.

?????? Nobody this stupid could have written an article claiming for the DH, could they? I mean seriously, is there one person on the planet that thinks that the Union would oppose the DH? It's 15 full time jobs, instead of part time jobs, if the union is about money, then the DH is the way they would prefer.

I don't see any value for baseball in getting rid of the DH (or adopting it fulltime). You have fans of both brands of baseball, some ferociously so (Vlad and Lisa on one side, Ray on the other). What's the point of alienating one group of fans simply for homogeneity's sake?

16. SoSH U at work Posted: October 31, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4289482)
I don't see any value for baseball in getting rid of the DH (or adopting it fulltime). You have fans of both brands of baseball, some ferociously so (Vlad and Lisa on one side, Ray on the other). What's the point of alienating one group of fans simply for homogeneity's sake?

That is the crux of it all, ultimately it's in baseball's best interest to keep them separate. I used to argue that eventually the DH will happen in both leagues, now I'm less certain because the appeal of keeping it separate is too much to resist.

Choose the DH from the stands, randomly, the way they now choose people to upgrade to luxury boxes or get free coupons for tacos. This will add lots of interest, particularly if the DH turns out to be four years old.

That is the crux of it all, ultimately it's in baseball's best interest to keep them separate. I used to argue that eventually the DH will happen in both leagues, now I'm less certain because the appeal of keeping it separate is too much to resist.

You are talking about Ray though, he doesn't even watch baseball, he just sits at home looking at the predictions of what should have happen and assumes that is what happened and ignores the realities in front of him.

Small strike zone!!! All the kid has to do is stand there in a crouch and, voila, base on balls; might need a pinch-runner at some point though.

Wasn't there one of the kids in Backyard Baseball who was especially good because he was small, so his strike zone was small? And then he was also a really good hitter, so anything in the zone he smashed? For some reason, your post reminded me of that, hah.

The days of players staying with one team (Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gywnn, Robin Yount, George Brett, Derek Jeter, and Chipper Jones) are gone.

Wait... what? Did Jeter retire?

The lament that "players don't stay with one team anymore" is pretty much exactly as accurate as it has been for the past 30 years. It's been a very, very long time since it was "normal" to spend an entire (long) career with one team. But the days are not "gone."

Jeter and Rivera are (probably) back next year, Todd Helton, Jimmy Rollins, Michael Young and Brian Roberts have been with their teams 12+ seasons already, and guys like Justin Verlander, Joe Mauer, Matt Kemp, Troy Tulowitzki, Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, Ryan Zimmerman, and Joey Votto (signed through 2023!) seem like they could be headed that way. Ryan Howard might be physically done before his Phillies contract is.

The lament that "players don't stay with one team anymore" is pretty much exactly as accurate as it has been for the past 30 years. It's been a very, very long time since it was "normal" to spend an entire (long) career with one team. But the days are not "gone."

It's never been normal for players to spend their entire careers with one team. It's always been the extraordinarily rare. The only difference between the FA era and the reserve clause days are that both parties can now be "disloyal," rather than just the owners. But the owners in the reserve clause days were generally disloyal enough for both. Playing one's entire career for one franchise has always been the exception, best exemplified by the all-time Braves-only list (the top 3 are all FA-era players), despite the franchise being older than God.

You are talking about Ray though, he doesn't even watch baseball, he just sits at home looking at the predictions of what should have happen and assumes that is what happened and ignores the realities in front of him.

This is awesome. No, not only awesome, the single defining moment of awesomeness. A primey for sure.

Jeter and Rivera are (probably) back next year, Todd Helton, Jimmy Rollins, Michael Young and Brian Roberts have been with their teams 12+ seasons already, and guys like Justin Verlander, Joe Mauer, Matt Kemp, Troy Tulowitzki, Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, Ryan Zimmerman, and Joey Votto (signed through 2023!) seem like they could be headed that way. Ryan Howard might be physically done before his Phillies contract is.

You can add Ryan Braun to that list as well. Of course, lots of guys look like they're headed that way until they pull a Joe Namath.

It's never been normal for players to spend their entire careers with one team. It's always been the extraordinarily rare

It is more common now than in the heyday of the reserve clause for the very top players to change teams in their prime. In the 1950s and 60s, when the current crop of old farts was growing up, major stars tended to be traded, if at all, pretty late in their careers. Imagine Ernie Banks becoming a free agent in the 1959-60 offseason. I think that people remember Mays as a Giant, Aaron as a Brave (in both cases their teams were more loyal to them than to the cities they played in), and the final couple of years are an afterthought. Banks would have been Mr. Cub if he'd played his last two seasons with the Padres (it has never hurt Billy Williams's or Ron Santo's images as Cubs that they ended up on other clubs). Whereas there's little chance that Banks is remembered as Mr. Cub if he plays the 1960s with the Yankees or Dodgers before a stint in San Diego.

Of course there are counterexamples (Frank Robinson, and several pitchers, who have always been a bit more moveable than great position players), but by and large, there is a pretty normal (though not inevitable) change of uniform somewhere in a great star's midcareer now, and it's been that way since the 1970s.

Of course there are counterexamples (Frank Robinson, and several pitchers, who have always been a bit more moveable than great position players), but by and large, there is a pretty normal (though not inevitable) change of uniform somewhere in a great star's midcareer now, and it's been that way since the 1970s.

Agreed, but that's just talking about a change in when the moves happened, not the overall effect. And it's simply true that it has never been common for players to play their entire career for one franchise, as just a look at the all-time greats would indicate. It might be slightly more unlikely now, but not dramatically so. And that's because a byproduct of the FA era which gave players the opportunity to move against their employers wishes was the 5 and 10 rights that gave them the opportunity to stay.